Random Politics - Page 96

creamcheese · 29th April 2016, 05:05

I assume National's numbers are so low due to not having to expense so much as they travel in governmental vehicles and the like. Otherwise surely some of those National heavy-hitters would have much higher claims.

fixed_truth · 29th April 2016, 08:34

^^
Nationals figure doesn't include ministerial expenses.

Quote:

On average, Labour MPs spent $15,444 each, New Zealand First MPs spent $14,652, Green MPs spent $14,509, Maori Party MPs spent $12,234 and National MPs (excluding ministerial expenses) spent $8505.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11630280

Ab · 29th April 2016, 12:30

why would it?

fixed_truth · 29th April 2016, 16:05

It wouldn't. Taking ministerial expenses into consideration could explain why the Govts parliamentary service expenses are lower.

CCS · 29th April 2016, 16:15

What I want to know is why the Greens expenses are so high when they have nothing to do. They don't represent electorates.

CCS · 29th April 2016, 16:34

Speaking of people who do nothing, who the fuck is Nuk Korako and why does he spend so much? Stuart Smith? Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi? Fucken list MPs. Same goes for the other big spenders. I mean, what the fuck does David Cunliffe even do these days? Oh that's right, spends taxpayer money while he waits to get booted the fuck out of Labour.

Ab · 29th April 2016, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

It wouldn't. Taking ministerial expenses into consideration could explain why the Govts parliamentary service expenses are lower.

Ministers have to do stuff. Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Tourism and International Trade and shit like that are constantly travelling, so including them is silly. In an apples-apples comparison you need to compare backbenchers, and in that comparison Labour MPs cost the country almost twice as much as National MPs.

fixed_truth · 29th April 2016, 17:21

edit: ah non ministers

Is comparing Nationals non ministers with Labour as an opposition party oranges with oranges?

CCS · 29th April 2016, 17:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Is comparing Nationals non ministers with Labour as an opposition party oranges with oranges?

Well... you're comparing MPs with MPs, so... yes. It's oranges and oranges.

fixed_truth · 29th April 2016, 17:58

I reckon Labours front bench (for example) would be more active with party meetings and attending public events etc than Nationals non ministers.

But it's all a bit vague really if analysis doesn't take into consideration how much travel is around work commuting and how this ties into Wellington accommodation etc.

crocos · 29th April 2016, 18:02

FT: Re-read Ab's comment.

Backbenchers to backbenchers. Not "National non-ministers vs Labour Front bench"

fixed_truth · 29th April 2016, 18:14

Quote:

On average, Labour MPs spent $15,444 each, New Zealand First MPs spent $14,652, Green MPs spent $14,509, Maori Party MPs spent $12,234 and National MPs (excluding ministerial expenses) spent $8505.

Just so we're on the same page (it is Friday beer o'clock) these averages are backbenches vs backbenches and exclude Ministers and Labours front bench?

CCS · 29th April 2016, 18:27

No.

These are all the MPs. Ab is saying if you want to do your own oranges analysis then you would need to compare backbenchers. The list as published is the expenses of all MPs. Those MPs who are also ministers have their expenses claimed on this list in their capacity as MPs and on a separate list in their capacity as ministers.

Ab · 29th April 2016, 18:31

I see ACT's Seymour has no Wellington accommodation expenses, no out-of-Wellington accommodation expenses, no air travel, and a tiny surface travel bill. Is he commuting to parliament on the bus or something?

Quote:

Act Seymour, David - - - 655

CCS · 29th April 2016, 18:38

He's probably travelling to Wellington via Nakedbus and dossing down in a mates place.

StN · 29th April 2016, 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

He's probably travelling to Wellington via Nakedbus and dossing down in a mates place.

Netflix and chill.

Nothing · 30th April 2016, 02:52

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdlXTJIL7Oc
And I was all like... WEEEEEEEE

fixed_truth · 10th May 2016, 21:21

whailowned

Quote:

A blogger's own campaign to have name suppression laws tightened has resulted in that blogger being refused name suppression after pleading guilty to his own illegal activities. Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/time...-found-you-out

Lightspeed · 11th May 2016, 17:42

pxpx · 12th May 2016, 11:38

Ab · 12th May 2016, 12:01

this is going to get dragged out for weeks, providing cover for National well into June. this is entirely Little's fault, and now he doesn't even have a press secretary.

CCS · 12th May 2016, 12:09

And Labour still won't apologise for smearing Chinese.

lolz

Lightspeed · 12th May 2016, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

this is going to get dragged out for weeks, providing cover for National well into June. this is entirely Little's fault, and now he doesn't even have a press secretary.

At least John dodged an awkward Q&A session.

Ab · 12th May 2016, 12:56

Yes I thought John Key obeyed the instructions from his shadowy Jewish banking overlords to deliberately get ejected from the House to the letter.

The Little thing though - the last thing Labour needs. Little lawyers up and goes to court? Labour can't afford that, it's broke. Little folds and apologises? He'll get laughed at from now until the election.

Lightspeed · 12th May 2016, 13:43

Maybe you should lay off the blogs for awhile Ab....

Ab · 12th May 2016, 14:08

Seriously though, JK doesn't get himself ejected by accident. That was nicely timed.

pxpx · 12th May 2016, 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

Seriously though, JK doesn't get himself ejected by accident. That was nicely timed.

Can you blame him? He was up against political heavyweight Ron Marks next. Terrifying.

Ab · 12th May 2016, 15:19

I took it more as a mic-drop moment. Key was pretending to be getting furious with the opposition acting like idiots, because he'd just fucked them on the "mentioned in the Panama Papers" angle.

Opposition: "NZ is mentioned 60,000 times in the leak! This is a crisis!"

Key: "Calm down, just getting mentioned in this leak doesn't mean anything. There's no context. Those could be references to things in which NZ isn't even involved."

Opposition: "We got mentioned! If we got mentioned it's a crisis!"

Key: "Look Greenpeace is mentioned in the fucking papers. Amnesty International is mentioned in the fucking papers."

Labour: "THAT'S TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND SHAMEFUL AND THE PM SHOULD APOLOGISE BECAUSE THERE'S NO CONTEXT AND ANYWAY THOSE WERE REFERENCES TO THINGS IN WHICH GREENPEACE AND AMNESTY INTL WEREN'T EVEN INVOLVED, JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE MENTIONED IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING"

Key: "Oh for fuck's sake you lot are fucking muppets"

Speaker: "The PM will leave the House"

Key: *drops mic* *smirks*

Labour and the Greens are highfiving now because they think they got one over on Key and made him lose his cool. They don't even realise they got played. They're like children with 5-second attention spans who keep forgetting that Key is actually really good at this stuff.

Lightspeed · 14th May 2016, 22:40

Key ends week deeply satisfied

fixed_truth · 15th May 2016, 20:28

Does NZ have a problem with anti-Maori racism?: RNZ Checkpoint (video)

pxpx · 16th May 2016, 11:53

Gold
https://imperatorfish.com/2016/05/10...-labour-party/

Ab · 16th May 2016, 14:10

Sensing a theme here

http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.au/...and-lefts.html

Lightspeed · 16th May 2016, 15:07

What's with some John Key supporters' obsession with characterising a particular sub-set of typically emotive and unsophisticated John Key detractors as "the Left"? As if "the Left" was a real and coherent thing?

Lightspeed · 16th May 2016, 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Does NZ have a problem with anti-Maori racism?: RNZ Checkpoint (video)

Maori should be more like the rest of us. New Zealand certainly doesn't need this kind of sing-song rubbish:
Maori business leader Jason Witehira's emotional award speech

Bring on the next season of The Bachelor.

CCS · 16th May 2016, 15:57

That sort of carry on is why the left loses.

Lightspeed · 16th May 2016, 16:28

If you don't have a fat chunk of equity, then you're currently losing. Even if you do, you may still well be losing.

CCS · 16th May 2016, 16:41

So you're losing or you might be losing. Very informative. Cool.

Lightspeed · 16th May 2016, 16:54

Yeah, because your statement, the one I'm replying to, is so full of real information.

Ab · 16th May 2016, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

What's with some John Key supporters' obsession with characterising a particular sub-set of typically emotive and unsophisticated John Key detractors as "the Left"? As if "the Left" was a real and coherent thing?

Go to Hansard and check how much of question time in the past 3 parliaments has been taken up with "does the Prime Minister stand by all his statements?" Labour in particular has spent far more time trying to catch John Key out than presenting itself as a potential government.

CCS · 16th May 2016, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

Sensing a theme here

The funny thing is that Whaleoil has been commenting on this phenomenon for years and explaining what Labour needs to do to come back. But of course, he is AIDS, leprosy and ebola all in one so his opinion is ignored.

When even some in the Left are cottoning on to this, it's time for Labour pay attention.
Hilariously, though, the first comment on Trotter's blog is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter petterson

Aren't you part of the Left? Why aren't you giving advice on how to get rid of Key?

Well... he IS giving advice on getting rid of Key. But to get rid of Key necessitates NOT attacking Key at every opportunity.

I've seen some dumb shit written by Trotter, but he does understand this issue correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Trotter

For the Left to win it needs to know how to reach the people whose votes can make it the government.

29th April 2016, 16:15	#3805
CCS Stunt Pants	What I want to know is why the Greens expenses are so high when they have nothing to do. They don't represent electorates. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

29th April 2016, 16:34	#3806
CCS Stunt Pants	Speaking of people who do nothing, who the fuck is Nuk Korako and why does he spend so much? Stuart Smith? Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi? Fucken list MPs. Same goes for the other big spenders. I mean, what the fuck does David Cunliffe even do these days? Oh that's right, spends taxpayer money while he waits to get booted the fuck out of Labour. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

29th April 2016, 18:27	#3813
CCS Stunt Pants	No. These are all the MPs. Ab is saying if you want to do your own oranges analysis then you would need to compare backbenchers. The list as published is the expenses of all MPs. Those MPs who are also ministers have their expenses claimed on this list in their capacity as MPs and on a separate list in their capacity as ministers. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

29th April 2016, 18:38	#3815
CCS Stunt Pants	He's probably travelling to Wellington via Nakedbus and dossing down in a mates place. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

12th May 2016, 12:09	#3822
CCS Stunt Pants	And Labour still won't apologise for smearing Chinese. lolz __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

29th April 2016, 05:05	#3801
creamcheese	I assume National's numbers are so low due to not having to expense so much as they travel in governmental vehicles and the like. Otherwise surely some of those National heavy-hitters would have much higher claims. __________________ wtf. cheeser

29th April 2016, 12:30	#3803
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	why would it?

29th April 2016, 16:05	#3804
fixed_truth	It wouldn't. Taking ministerial expenses into consideration could explain why the Govts parliamentary service expenses are lower. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

29th April 2016, 17:21	#3808
fixed_truth	edit: ah non ministers Is comparing Nationals non ministers with Labour as an opposition party oranges with oranges? __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. Last edited by fixed_truth : 29th April 2016 at 17:26.

29th April 2016, 17:58	#3810
fixed_truth	I reckon Labours front bench (for example) would be more active with party meetings and attending public events etc than Nationals non ministers. But it's all a bit vague really if analysis doesn't take into consideration how much travel is around work commuting and how this ties into Wellington accommodation etc. __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

29th April 2016, 18:02	#3811
crocos	FT: Re-read Ab's comment. Backbenchers to backbenchers. Not "National non-ministers vs Labour Front bench" __________________ Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية

30th April 2016, 02:52	#3817
Nothing	ARC Meeting caves to the boomers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdlXTJIL7Oc And I was all like... WEEEEEEEE

11th May 2016, 17:42	#3819
Lightspeed	lolz __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

12th May 2016, 12:01	#3821
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	this is going to get dragged out for weeks, providing cover for National well into June. this is entirely Little's fault, and now he doesn't even have a press secretary.

12th May 2016, 12:56	#3824
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Yes I thought John Key obeyed the instructions from his shadowy Jewish banking overlords to deliberately get ejected from the House to the letter. The Little thing though - the last thing Labour needs. Little lawyers up and goes to court? Labour can't afford that, it's broke. Little folds and apologises? He'll get laughed at from now until the election.

12th May 2016, 13:43	#3825
Lightspeed	Maybe you should lay off the blogs for awhile Ab.... __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

12th May 2016, 14:08	#3826
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Seriously though, JK doesn't get himself ejected by accident. That was nicely timed.

12th May 2016, 15:19	#3828
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	I took it more as a mic-drop moment. Key was pretending to be getting furious with the opposition acting like idiots, because he'd just fucked them on the "mentioned in the Panama Papers" angle. Opposition: "NZ is mentioned 60,000 times in the leak! This is a crisis!" Key: "Calm down, just getting mentioned in this leak doesn't mean anything. There's no context. Those could be references to things in which NZ isn't even involved." Opposition: "We got mentioned! If we got mentioned it's a crisis!" Key: "Look Greenpeace is mentioned in the fucking papers. Amnesty International is mentioned in the fucking papers." Labour: "THAT'S TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND SHAMEFUL AND THE PM SHOULD APOLOGISE BECAUSE THERE'S NO CONTEXT AND ANYWAY THOSE WERE REFERENCES TO THINGS IN WHICH GREENPEACE AND AMNESTY INTL WEREN'T EVEN INVOLVED, JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE MENTIONED IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING" Key: "Oh for fuck's sake you lot are fucking muppets" Speaker: "The PM will leave the House" Key: drops mic smirks Labour and the Greens are highfiving now because they think they got one over on Key and made him lose his cool. They don't even realise they got played. They're like children with 5-second attention spans who keep forgetting that Key is actually really good at this stuff.

14th May 2016, 22:40	#3829
Lightspeed	Key ends week deeply satisfied __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

15th May 2016, 20:28	#3830
fixed_truth	Does NZ have a problem with anti-Maori racism?: RNZ Checkpoint (video) __________________ Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

16th May 2016, 11:53	#3831
pxpx	Gold https://imperatorfish.com/2016/05/10...-labour-party/

16th May 2016, 14:10	#3832
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Sensing a theme here http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.au/...and-lefts.html

16th May 2016, 15:07	#3833
Lightspeed	What's with some John Key supporters' obsession with characterising a particular sub-set of typically emotive and unsophisticated John Key detractors as "the Left"? As if "the Left" was a real and coherent thing? __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

16th May 2016, 15:57	#3835
CCS Stunt Pants	^^^ That sort of carry on is why the left loses. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

16th May 2016, 16:28	#3836
Lightspeed	If you don't have a fat chunk of equity, then you're currently losing. Even if you do, you may still well be losing. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

16th May 2016, 16:41	#3837
CCS Stunt Pants	So you're losing or you might be losing. Very informative. Cool. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

16th May 2016, 16:54	#3838
Lightspeed	Yeah, because your statement, the one I'm replying to, is so full of real information. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.